Innovating federal contracting: Be careful what you wish for

We’re all aware of — and perhaps have participated in — the criticism of today’s model of contracting with the federal government.

It takes too long; costs too much; has too many rules; has too many checks and balances; has too few checks and balances; doesn’t utilize commercial best practices; doesn’t work as well as the commercial model; doesn’t involve the [insert favorite functional specialty here] enough in the process; doesn’t provide enough training for its acquisition professionals, etc.

One criticism echoed from all corners is that government contracting isn’t “innovative” enough. The frequent promotion of taking innovative risks in government contracting — by both government and industry (sometimes by those without responsibility for the outcome) — is a longstanding demand of all acquisition and contracting pundits.

However, when such change is forthcoming, criticism and second-guessing is swift in response and often before the results of such innovation are yet known.